04-09-2018, 08:49 AM
Well, let's face it, there are a lot of reasons. If we look at the Canon SL1, they can be made small and compact, even though it's APS-C, but the mount is a full frame mount. Probably for little extra space/size, it could be made a FF camera. It's a marketing decision not to make such a small FF camera, because FF is more expensive, so it's being put into Pro bodies, with better sealing, extra slots, etc. etc.
If we take the old film bodies like EF-1, or A1, yes, they are flatter, because of the film thinness. Take the space on one side for the film role, and use it for a battery. Take the space of the other side film roll space, it's for memory chip, and maybe a processor. Overall, they can be made similar in size like the old days, give a few millimetres for the thickness of sensor and cooling. But due to modern material (plastics), they are lighter than old film bodies.
Why are they still so big? Many small reasons:
Screens on the back side, take that away, you save some space.
Articulated screen on the back side, it will be a bit thicker than a fixed screen (see change from Canon SL1 to Sl2).
Touch screen, yes, at's a tiny bit as well.
Space behind the thumb for all those wheels buttons - depending on what you wan to offer, you need a certain real estate. Note that the SL1/SL2 reduce the number. In film cameras you didn't have to worry about that.
Viewfinder: small conveniences: built-in flash (forget about that in old film cameras), eye sensors. Electronic overlays. Improved exposure meters. All needs to be squeezed in that bump on top. Ok, it's minimal, but nevertheless. For the point and shot cameras of the film days, they could shrink by taking away the mirror box, and the pentaprism, replacing it with a cheesy little window.
Handgrip: Yes, look at the cameras, all these huge hand-grips for convenience. Didn't exist on the EF or A1.
So, while bodies could be made smaller, user/marketing demands keeps them big.
As to lenses, yes, they are increasing as well. IQ demand is increasing. Compare the FD 50mm f1.4 versus the EF 50mm f1.4. Both have similar lens element design. The EF is a bit bigger, mainly in diameter, because the motors for AF had to be put in there as well. But the EF 50mm f.1.4 is still relatively compact. While many accept it's limitations, how many nowadays complain about it's problematic motor, it's border weakness wide open, etc. etc. So, look at the Sigma ART 50mm f1.4. Improved IQ, but you have to stick a lot of extra lens elements in there to achieve that. There is no free lunch. The only lenses where this doesn't apply are the tele lenses, there is enough space to put extra elements in there. Maybe they just get a bit heavier.
So, there is a trend for increased lens size because of quality demands. Users are less likely to accept a compromise only to get a small lens. Mirrorless, because of the reduced flange distance, can help for lenses in the 20-50mm range, but otherwise I think we are stuck with every increasing lenses for top quality lenses, or small lightweight kit stuff with limited apertures.
So, small can compact could be done, but would the resulting trade-offs (omissions) be acceptable to most people nowadays?
If we take the old film bodies like EF-1, or A1, yes, they are flatter, because of the film thinness. Take the space on one side for the film role, and use it for a battery. Take the space of the other side film roll space, it's for memory chip, and maybe a processor. Overall, they can be made similar in size like the old days, give a few millimetres for the thickness of sensor and cooling. But due to modern material (plastics), they are lighter than old film bodies.
Why are they still so big? Many small reasons:
Screens on the back side, take that away, you save some space.
Articulated screen on the back side, it will be a bit thicker than a fixed screen (see change from Canon SL1 to Sl2).
Touch screen, yes, at's a tiny bit as well.
Space behind the thumb for all those wheels buttons - depending on what you wan to offer, you need a certain real estate. Note that the SL1/SL2 reduce the number. In film cameras you didn't have to worry about that.
Viewfinder: small conveniences: built-in flash (forget about that in old film cameras), eye sensors. Electronic overlays. Improved exposure meters. All needs to be squeezed in that bump on top. Ok, it's minimal, but nevertheless. For the point and shot cameras of the film days, they could shrink by taking away the mirror box, and the pentaprism, replacing it with a cheesy little window.
Handgrip: Yes, look at the cameras, all these huge hand-grips for convenience. Didn't exist on the EF or A1.
So, while bodies could be made smaller, user/marketing demands keeps them big.
As to lenses, yes, they are increasing as well. IQ demand is increasing. Compare the FD 50mm f1.4 versus the EF 50mm f1.4. Both have similar lens element design. The EF is a bit bigger, mainly in diameter, because the motors for AF had to be put in there as well. But the EF 50mm f.1.4 is still relatively compact. While many accept it's limitations, how many nowadays complain about it's problematic motor, it's border weakness wide open, etc. etc. So, look at the Sigma ART 50mm f1.4. Improved IQ, but you have to stick a lot of extra lens elements in there to achieve that. There is no free lunch. The only lenses where this doesn't apply are the tele lenses, there is enough space to put extra elements in there. Maybe they just get a bit heavier.
So, there is a trend for increased lens size because of quality demands. Users are less likely to accept a compromise only to get a small lens. Mirrorless, because of the reduced flange distance, can help for lenses in the 20-50mm range, but otherwise I think we are stuck with every increasing lenses for top quality lenses, or small lightweight kit stuff with limited apertures.
So, small can compact could be done, but would the resulting trade-offs (omissions) be acceptable to most people nowadays?